DEfining Weak from Daeef

      The common perception is that weak hadith are to be categorically rejected. This scenario happens often: someone narrates a hadith in a gathering and an anonymous know-it-all in the crowd shouts that the hadith is daeef (weak). In common parlance, that means the hadith is rejected. We associate the word weak with hadith to mean that it is refuse to be thrown in the garbage.   

      But who and where did that rule derive from? Which muhaddith or predecessor ever said or even insinuated that if and whenever a hadith is weak, it will be categorically rejected?

Term and definition

      Here is part of the problem. The word daeef has a definition in the Arabic dictionary but it also is a technical term that is used in the Islamic science of Principles of Hadith. We employ the lexical definition but mean the technical term, which is not the same as the lexical definition.

The technical definition of a weak hadith is that which does not fulfill the five conditions of an authentic hadith:

1.    Each narrator must be of the highest integrity (udul)

2.    Each narrator must have strong retention (kamil al-dabt)

3.    There may be no missing link in the transmission

4.    The hadith must not challenge other authentic hadith that are stronger than it in authenticity

5.    The hadith must not have any hidden weakness (‘illa)

      How weak a hadith depends a lot on how many of these conditions are missing in the hadith. It may be one or more than one, but in any case, a hadith that is missing one condition will not be at the same level as a hadith which does not fulfil any of the conditions. The degree of rejection or acceptance of a weak hadith is based on many factors, one of which is the number of conditions missing from the hadith transmission.

In any case, when we use ‘weak’ as an adjective of hadith, we are not thinking anywhere along the lines mentioned above. Ignorance toward the factors that define and measure the degree of weakness in a hadith by replacing it with the lexical definition and making blanket statements that throw all daeef hadith in the same proverbial bin is one beautiful example of the fulfillment of a famous hadith, “A time will come when ignorance will prevail” (Bukhari; yaqill al-rijal wa yakthuru al-nisa’).

Understanding weak hadith

Let’s say there is a hadith which states that the Quran is a book of Allah. Will you accept the hadith or reject it?

 There are numerous weak hadith which state absolute facts, undeniable realities and Islamic doctrine. For example, the hadith about “My Sahaba are like stars”, which is often cited in Jumu‘a sermons, is a weak hadith. The muhaddithun do not reject such hadith even when they are weak.

Why?

Because they are corroborated by authentic sources, maybe a verse (s) of the Quran or authentic hadith (s).

So, now have we have learned a fundamental rule that if a weak hadith is supported by authentic sources, we will accept the hadith even if it is—yes—weak.

We apply this same rule in our practical life too. Someone you don’t know and have never seen before passes on some information to you. In hadith terminology, he is called majhool (unknown).

NOTE: A hadith with a majhool narrator is by default a weak hadith.

Five minutes later, a group of trusted friends come along and you tell them that this stranger came to you and passed on some hard-to-believe information. Your trusted friends tell you that he may be a stranger, but what he said was, indeed, correct. Now, your viewpoint may potentially change based on the newly acquired information you acquired from a majhool person.

But why?

Because it has been corroborated by a trusted source. If you apply the oversimplistic belief that weak equals rejected no matter what, then you will tell your friends that since you don’t know the person who initially gave you the information, you will not take their word for it, and therefore, his information is false.

After such blatant pessimism, I doubt you will be able to keep anyone as a friend for too long.

And, then, are all sources of floating news the same? Is CNN the same as Al-Jazeera? How about Fox News?

How about news you heard from an acquaintance, a regular masjid-goer, and the news you overheard from a nonbelieving colleague at your work place while he was conversing across the room to another colleague?

 How about information coming from a person whom you have caught lying before? Will it be at par with the information from a brother who is extremely honest and righteous but who often tends to conflate two events?

What if both narrated the complete opposite stories about the same event? Which story would you believe more? This or that?

Based on the weak equals rejected rule, you should deny the event even happened because both sources are dubious. Will you at least accept that the event occurred based on two weak sources, or is that even a point of contention? You need to formulate a rule for such a situation.

911 happened. Some sources say it was an inside job. The predominant view though is that a bunch of terrorists blew up the Twin Towers. You may surmise that since the majority of opinion is that it was terrorists, you are on the same side.

So, now you have formulated a new rule: if a source is weak but their information is corroborated by a majority opinion, it is no longer weak.

But what if that majority opinion is by manufactured consent? In other words, was the majority opinion shaped by the law of propaganda that is often attributed to the Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels who said,

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.”

You can only apply the rule once you have confirmed that the majority opinion is not by manufactured consent, which in itself is a gargantuan task.

In any case, how will you reach your conclusions and using what rules? All these questions I ask are relevant to the point that the matter of weak hadith is as complex as the different types of ‘weak’ news that we often encounter and accept or reject on a daily basis.

  Muhaddithun had to confront similar situations when they came across weak narrators, and thus formulated rules to sift through the different levels of weak hadith, understand the causes and intensity of weakness in the hadith.

To make matters worse, the reality of life is that no human being is perfect, which means that an authentic narrator may slip in his narration while a chronically forgetful narrator could perchance get it right.

There are rules for that too. For example, there is a type of hadith called mu’allal. It is an authentic hadith with a hidden weakness like an authentic narrator getting something wrong for the first time.

 Imam Bukhari was good at fishing out such hidden weaknesses. He is not recognized as one of the greatest muhaddith of all times for nothing. His student, Imam Tirmidhi, was another master. He even wrote a book called Kitab al-‘Ilal on this topic.

Because of the hidden weakness, the authentic hadith is declared weak. But its not the same type of weakness as a hadith in which a narrator is missing in a transmission. And the hadith with a single missing narrator will not be the same level of weak hadith as the hadith which has two missing narrators. Some are accepted while others are not, but it all depends on many different factors which are beyond the scope of this article.

In summary, to say that if a hadith is weak it must be rejected is a massively oversimplistic statement that exposes complete ignorance toward the science of formulated rules on the authentication of hadith.

The general rule as stated by Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal regarding weak hadith is as follows:

When we narrate something from the Prophet (peace be upon him) concerning halal and haram, the Sunna, and commandments, we will be harsh in examination of the transmission; and if we narrate from the Prophet (peace be upon him) in relation to encouraging toward good deeds and it is not a declared fabrication or narrated by other than the Prophet (peace be upon him), then we are lenient in the matter [of examining the transmission] (Manhaj al-Naqd fi ‘Ulum al-hadith; fasl fi anwa’i al-hadith al-mardud).”

Ibn Salah, Ibn al-Mahdi, and other leading muhaddithun have said much the same.

      So, next time someone says the hadith is daeef, first confirm if they know the technical definition of a daeef hadith. If they don’t and are unaware of what it entails, you would be rewarded for guiding them to the scholars who do so that ignorance can be removed from this Umma.

The Arba’een hadith challenge

The above statement of Imam Ahmad was put into practice by many muhaddithun by taking on the arba’een hadith challenge. What’s that?

In a weak hadith in Shua’b al-Iman, the Prophet (peace be upon him) said, “Whoever preserves forty hadith in my Umma from the Sunna, he will be written as an intercessor on the Day of Judgment.”

The muhaddithun of every era agree that this hadith is weak [Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal, Imam Nawawi, Ibn Asakir and Hafiz bin Hajar all have said the same]. [1]

But that didn’t stop the hadith masters and renowned muhaddithun from acting upon it. Here are some of the renowned imams who collected forty hadith:

• Abdullah bin Mubarak

• Muhammad bin Aslam al-Tusi

• Ibrahim bin ‘Ali al-Dhuhali

• Hasan bin Sufyan al-Nasawi

• Abu Bakr al-Ajuri

• Abu al-Hasan al-Dar Qutni

• Abu Abdullah al-Hakim

• Imam Nawawi

And this is only some.

Imam Nawawi says, “The collections [of hadith] in this matter [of forty hadith] is beyond innumeration (Muqaddamat al-Arba’een, p. 39-42).”

So, next time someone shouts that the hadith is daeef, feel free to roll your eyes and ask if they know the technical definition of a daeef hadith?

If they don’t and are unaware of what the meaning of daeef entails, do collect some rewards by guiding them to the books on this science or the scholars of this field and do your part in getting rid of ignorance from this Umma.

 [1] Al-Talkhees al-Habeer; kitab al-wasaya 1/93 | al-Arba’een al-Nawawiyya, p. 5 | Fayd al-Qadeer, 6/154